Just for the record, I would like to explain (to the best of my knowledge) two widely misunderstood and misused words. Emergent and Emerging. They are not synonymous, but are often used as such. I have used this great article form Christianity Today for sources

Emergent

Emergent is an official organization in the U.S. and the U.K. Emergent Village, the organization, is directed by Tony Jones, a Ph.D. student at Princeton Theological Seminary and a world traveler on behalf of all things both Emergent and emerging. Other names connected with Emergent Village include Doug Pagitt, Chris Seay, Tim Keel, Karen Ward, Ivy Beckwith, Brian McLaren, and Mark Oestreicher. Emergent U.K. is directed by Jason Clark. While Emergent is the intellectual and philosophical network of the emerging movement, it is a mistake to narrow all of emerging to the Emergent Village. Some in the emergent camp have decided that the message needs to become relevant along with the method, and have strayed from orthodoxy.

Emerging

Emerging churches are communities that practice the way of Jesus within postmodern cultures. This definition encompasses nine practices. Emerging churches (1) identify with the life of Jesus, (2) transform the secular realm, and (3) live highly communal lives. Because of these three activities, they (4) welcome the stranger, (5) serve with generosity, (6) participate as producers, (7) create as created beings, (8) lead as a body, and (9) take part in spiritual activities.
Emerging catches into one term the global reshaping of how to “do church” in postmodern culture. It has no central offices, and it is as varied as evangelicalism itself. It has been labeled as such because it it “emerging” from a long period of history where the church has been characterized with complacency, laziness, self-centered theology and a love for the traditions of man over the spirit of God.
Please reference this article to educate yourself on the issue. I think it is important that we are all well aware of this as we begin discussions on the topic. Especially with those in discernment ministries hurling these words as insults, faster than we can blink. While Rob Bell and Erwin McManus have declared themselves to NOT be emergent, they would probably feel comfortable being labeled emerging. Happy reading and God Bless!

I found it rather interesting yesterday that Slice 2.0 decided to defend their favorite idol, John MacArthur in a fashion that they have been unwilling to allow to their favorite whipping-boy, Rob Bell. Additionally, another bit of hypocrisy got tossed in today with their attack on Beth Moore…
Basically, what happened is this:

Johnnie Mac gave a speech at the opening of a conference he hosted ($300/person) on “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist” (don’t even get me started on that one). Apparently, a whole lot of Calvinist A-Mil’s took John’s strawman burning of their eschatology personally and started attacking him for it, saying that Johnnie isn’t “Reformed” (a damning accusation in that circle). In defense of JMac, Slice 2.0 printed Phil Johnson’s response that Johnnie Mac has never claimed to be “Reformed”.

Hypocrisy 1: Rob Bell is not, nor has ever claimed to be “emergent” or “emerging” – he has purposely on MANY occasions eschewed the label. This doesn’t seem to stop Ken & Company from taking every horror story from the far left of the Emergent/Emerging movement and then tying it back to Bell in some fashion. (I blogged more about this on my own site here.)
Hypocrisy 2: In Slice 2.0 today, they posted an article critical of an upcoming Beth Moore conference. The prize leading quote:

As the title of their headline points out, “15,000 women at $55 each…you do the math!”

Classic Slice bundled in the new format – same old hipocrisy, different day

Mike Ratliff’s recent post on CRN reveals and unfortunate mistake that so many in the discernment camp have made. In his blog entitled What My Obedience to God Costs Other People, he writes the following

When God turned me around and put me on the right track with Him back in 2004 I naively assumed that all of the Christians I knew would automatically see the truths God was revealing to my heart and rejoice in their own revival. However, that was not the case. In fact, most of them quit talking with me. I found myself isolated and separate. The more I obeyed God the more separate I became.

I have heard this now from Mike Ratliff, Ken Silva, Mike Corley and countless others who feel it their duty to inform the world of the heretics in the church. It is the belief that the godlier you become, the more people will reject you. And, if you are not experiencing some degree of persecution, you are doing something wrong. They capitalize on the few verses that say the gospel will offend and fail to look at the whole picture. Could it be that it is not the message that Mike and others are offending people with? Could it be their method of sharing the gospel offends? What was it again you were hoping for in a recent blog Ken? Oh yes… “Hell-fire and brimstone preachers”

What about the times where 3,000 came to Christ in one sermon? Apparently the gospel was not so offensive there. I am sure that Peter would be named a man-pleasing, seeker-sensitive fool on the Christian Research Network for that event. What about the countless times where “many were added to their number that day” in the book of Acts? You see, the gospel actually brings life, not offense. And, while there are those that are offended by the message because of their pride and arrogance, it should not be expected and definitely not desired and cherished as a check mark on the road to one’s own superior spirituality. It’s as if when you become offensive, you are doing something right.

When I read through the blogs and essays on Apprising, CRN, The Expositor, and other watch dog blogs, it seems that they actually want to make the way much narrower that it is. They want less people to be evangelized (after all, the elect is such a small number). Anyone who is actively doing mass evangelism is obviously doing something wrong. And, when that many people are coming to Christ, there is no way they could understand or experience what is happening at a deeper level. This simply is not true. And quite frankly, it grieves me.  It is also worth noting that those who were offended in the New Testament were the religiously pious.  These were the people who thought that their theology was from God, and anyone who thought otherwise should be punished.  Ring any bells?
I leave you with this haunting response from Mike when I questioned him about my experience of growing closer to a Christian community when I am growing closer to God. He actually goes as far as distinguishing between “Christians” and those who are obedient to God. This should at a very minimum raise some questions.

If you are being obedient to God and you are actually drawing closer to the majority of professing Christians then you only THINK you are being obedient to God.